Sunday, August 24, 2014

It is well known that who forgets history, will repeat
it. Conversely, who focuses too much on history, will also repeat it with
delight and will become its prisoner. I think the solutions of our present
problems are not in the past, and much of the past wisdom is actually
misleading. Politically and not only politically, the strings by which we are
manipulated come from the past. I think much of the wisdom of past has to be
examined by critical thinking, mercilessly- starting with old stories taught in
the schools. For example, when my blog had less than 10 readers per day, I
wrote this:

It was made known by Hans Christian Andersen, but
actually is much older with folkloric roots.

“But he hasn't got anything on," a
little child said. This is the crucial point of the story.

Andersen offers us a relatively peaceful ending
of the story, but he lies. The historical truth is this: the parents and
grandparents of the child were executed with no delay, for ‘supporting
defamation and lèse-majesté”. The child being so young, was
exiled to a remote area, however he died underway due to some mysterious
accident. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

We have to learn that things are not what they
seem, or we are told they are, so many times.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

There is a training process that forms the mind of the
problem solver that might explain why scientists are reluctant to accept
unorthodox ways of problem solving. In scientific education, a scientist gains
success by learning the established doctrinaire of the field of study he is
being educated in. The scientist is presented with a doctrinaire outline in a
text book and will pass the course if his way of thinking has been properly
molded by his professor in the course of his studies whose chief objective is
conformance with the required doctrinaire. He passes a final examine that
demonstrates that he understands and agrees with the doctrinaire and the
professor who has enforced the course of study on the student.

Over a lifetime of conformance based thinking, a religious
like need to conform to the prevailing belief structure is ingrained in his
mental being. When an idea is outside that conformant framework, the
scientist’s mental processes automatically and unconsciously rebels to discount
the new idea as a sin against doctrinaire and the dereliction of consistency
implied by the new idea.

Over the centuries, this doctrinaire has been modified and
oftentimes been replaced whole cloth with some new way of thinking that is
forced on science to meet some unusual nonconforming natural idiosyncrasy. When
a new scientific theory is introduced it usually takes years or decades to
penetrate through the closed minded prejudices of the majority of conservative
scientists.

Furthermore, science has become specialized to such an
extent that in order to get to the cutting edge of any given field, it takes
half a lifetime to acquire the knowledge and the history of the narrowly
defined subject matter. When a
scientific specialist writes about the hard won advancement that he has labored
hard to contribute to his specific field, that information lays fallow because
only a few people in the world understand the context and the background
required to properly understand and utilize his contribution. Over his career, the scientific specialist
builds on his contributions to the field and hopes someone will reference any
of the papers that he has produced. Each new paper becomes more and more
incomprehensible dealing on more and more unfathomable and obscure detail of the
subject matter.

This extreme scientific specialization has resulted in stove
piping of the scientific disciplines.

Stovepiping (also stove piping) is a metaphorical term which
recalls a stovepipe's function as an isolated vertical conduit for information and
knowledge, and has been use to describe several ways in which raw information may be presented without proper
context. It is a system created to solve a specific problem.

The lack of context springs from the specialized nature of
the knowledge and information. It also has limited and myopic focus that is not
easily shared. Alternatively, the lack of context may come from a particular
group, selectively presenting only that information that supports certain
conclusions or supports the agenda that advances the interest of that group.

The other mode of education of problem solving is provided
by real world experience in meeting project oriented requirements. In business,
a customer puts out a request for quote (RFQ) that requires a potential vender
to meet a specification describing the project.

The customer does not require the vender to follow any
method in the way that the vender solves the conformance of the proposed
solution to totally meeting the entirety of the specification.

The vender in a functional analysis of the specification
brakes up the specification into a thousand atomic level individual
requirements. His solution must meet all these many requirements simultaneously
and in every possible permutation and combination of situations.

A chief project engineer will develop a pragmatic solutions
oriented way of thinking. This mindset is not concerned with following the
rules as a means of the solution; he just wants to come up with any viable way
of solving the problem, rules be dammed. Success is what counts no matter the
way in which that success is achieved. Cleverness and elegance of thought is
what distinguishes a great project engineer from all the rest.

An experienced project engineer will develop a feeling about
the major directions to be taken that are implied by the specification. He
thinks to himself, if we can stay true to these fundamental design principles
we will be alright. In this way like
high art, the design engineer breaths the essence of his soul into the system
to be uncovered by any who can appreciate the brilliance of his creation.

Under the realities and pressures imposed on the chief
project engineer by the commercial world, this renaissance man is usually faced with a task that he has
little or no background to apply to or depend on. And yet, to be successful in
implementing his project, he must become an expert second to none in multiple
fields. His first job is to determine what fields of expertise he must acquire
to meet the new challenge. Two dozen diverse fields of knowledge might be
required in a large and convoluted project. As an expert adept at learning and
correlating of information, he begins his study by identifying, surveying, and
going through all the thousands of obscure scientific papers that have been produced
by the various scientific specialist both newly written or that have been
laying fallow and unappreciated for ages.

He begins to apply this knowledge to the requirements both
specified and implied in his project. His plans are formed around the aggregation
of knowledge that seldom ends until the customer accepts the project as
completed. Even then he works to solve latent defects in his project until the
project has reached a high level of utility, effectiveness, and customer
satisfaction.

A good example of this type of adaptable mentality is the
various ways NASA has solved how spacecraft
land on Mars. Based on the projects requirements, the Mars landing
method may use balloons that bounce the lander on touchdown, or use
retrorockets, or a Sky Crain that gently lowers the lander from a height. All these method are based on absolutely
meeting all the requirements of the project, the least of which is a successful
landing.

LENR requires a project oriented way of thinking. The LENR
method must conform to the multitude of individual observations of its nature.
The method must be independent of any constraints imposed by existing
scientific doctrinaire, the majority of which are always subject to some level
of untruthfulness. We must look for a solution that meets all the
experimentally derived clues that have been gathered over the years and no clue
must be ignored.

The ultimate goal of the theorist looking to understand LENR
must be to uncover the ultimate operational principles that underlie the entirety
of LENR. A true LENR theory will cover all LENR systems as well as each and
every situation demonstrated by all those various systems.

I believe that this is what Peter Gluck means when he
says that LENR requires an engineering solution approach that is not
constrained and limited by existing scientific doctrinaire.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

THE PROBLEMS

The LENR field has seemingly intractable
problems of understanding the science, of managing the experiments and of
intensification & scale-up to an energy source. The existence of LENR is
beyond any doubt; using it for a real energy source still is a very open
question.

Anticipating the main message of this paper, I will say that actually
you cannot do much good with the immature, sick form of native LENR- it must be
converted to a superior one- helped to grow up.

It is time to completely re-think and re-write the history,
the status and the perspective of the field and adopt a radically and painfully
new strategy, new modes of thinking- shifting to a new Paradigm. (R: who the xxxx are you to decide?)

THE ROOT CAUSE: BAD START!

LENR’s mystery and tragedy: it was an unlucky discovery
(“miscovery”). Fleischmann and Pons have found the phenomenon too early, before
its time, in the worst place, where it certainly exists, but only in a
handicapped, underdeveloped vulnerable, suboptimal state. (R:do you indeed believe this or are you depressive?This is
the strangest thing I have ever heard!)

The natural
imperative to this- “move it!”- find a new, better environment without the
useless and/or harmful things- water, palladium, deuterium electro-chemistry,
too low working temperatures- was
realized only in part with a great delay, with no determination. In the cradle
system- the F&P Cell- the deadly curse of the new field- irreproducibility
is not solvable, intensification and scale-up are simply impossible. The bad
start was aggravated by a series of vis major errors and by unexpected
obstacles and difficulties. (R: only the enemies of
Cold Fusion have made errors!)

VIS MAJOR ERRORS

These “forced errors” are
more fatalities- unavoidable. Due to very unfavorable circumstances,
adversities and to lack of alternatives some bad choices were made by those
working in the field, collectively:

a) premature
announcement/publication/presentation of the discovery due to “competition” with
Steve Jones:

b) in the initial period hot
fusion thinking was used e.g. neutron hunting; the huge differences between hot
fusion and cold fusion were not understood;

c) due to weak signals –
forced focus on measurement and not on enhancement;

d) the heat produced being
more than any chemical source will produce- it MUST be nuclear and only
nuclear;

e) science and the scientific
method alone can solve the problems of LENR including practical energy source;
we have to find a theory (sing.) for LENR;

f) the electrochemical wet
PdD model has dominated over the gas phase catalytic NiH model; around 1994 the
results of Piantelli et al have NOT
determined a mass exodus to the NH model;

g) the absolute necessity of
deep degassing, of air-free working surfaces was never recognized (for wet PdD
it cannot be done);

These errors have lead to
three impediments to problem solving- 1-merciless oppression by mainstream
science, 2-the community has misunderstood the essence of the problem and
3-inadequate tools, methods, concepts, approaches were used for problem
solving. The progress in the field was slow, mainly horizontal and
incremental.
Metaphorically speaking, a scientific little ugly duckling is unable to
grow up and become a beautiful technological swan even after 25+ years (R: a bit
of respect please, Peter!)

OBSTACLES AND DIFFICULTIES

LENR is too complex, too new, to unexpected, too messy, too
multifaceted, too dynamic, too non-linear and too weird to be really understood
and controlled at the time of its discovery. LENR has all the disturbing VUCA
weaknesses: volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity.
The R problem is the deadliest for LENR- bad reproducibility has
to be judged in association with two other issues- weakness of the heat release
and its short duration. For the cradle system, Fleischmann-Pons Cell and
similar wet systems the reproducibility
problem and scale up practically cannot be solved, therefore these systems have
no technological future. I am a sad
outlier with the unpopular idea that the main cause of the R problem is the uncontrolled and uncontrollable blockage of the
active sites (a.k.a NAE) by gaseous molecules coming from the ubiquitous air is
the main cause of the bad function; add to this the low density of these active
sites at the temperatures at which the wet cells work at atmospheric pressure.
No chances of acceptance for the air poising hypothesis, no real progress in
reproducibility. The real tragedy in my opinion is that many of our colleagues
think the field can coexist with the R-problem, survive and even make progress.
Reality shows the contrary. (R: this is your
obsession, you lack courage!)

WHAT DOES NOT WORK

The search simple and
simplistic theories has not contributed much to a solution can be very
enjoyable intellectually.

It became increasingly
evident that the scientific method alone does not work in this case, in such a
chaotic experimental situation the noise disturbs both answers and questions
put to Nature. This is a sad reality and till now the LENR community was not
able to find an inner solution – the way out. It is attached to its axioms and
do not accept that a simple and simplistic theory is:

- an obstacle for the progress in field;

- an offense to Mother Nature

- mutilation of logic

- a guarantee that after 25 years of failures
we will have other 25 years of failures (R: how dare you to
criticize what you don’t understand?)

SKETCHING A
SOLUTION

Predictions for
the future are difficult, for the past they are much easier- however the events
are far from being crystal clear. The solutions-in hope- have appeared some
time ago and are on the way to certainty, that is commercial reality.

What has
happened- in my interpretation? LENR, in its original form is not viable and it had
to be re-invented. This was done by Andrea Rossi who has made a creative
bisociationeen between what he knew about LENR a la Fleischmann and Pons and
Piantelli his practical experience in heterogeneous catalysis- a great idea. I
am absolutely convinced that he has never read my “Topology is the key”or “Why technology first?” papers and he
has found alone everything. It happens that Rossi is a very demonizable,
non-standard paradoxical personality, for me this is irrelevant. I have read
thousands of biographies; many inventors and saints were worse than Rossi. He
has made errors before and after his great idea, DGT has a much better
engineering than Rossi. Perhaps Rossi will understand how “his effect” works based on
the second Report of the “Professors” He tries to convince us that he is also waiting for the results
as everybody and some people believe him.

For the sake of
correct degree of filiations, I will repeat here some of Rossi’s ideas re. the “old” LENR:

a- His Ni-H system hasnothing to dowith Piantelli's Ni-H system;

b- the can not learn
much useful for his technology from the entire LENR field\

c- the true LENR
specialists are not those who we have learned

to think;

d- Fleischmann's great
merit is that he has given us a dream not the idea or science per se; (Rossi,
at his turn has given us nightmare of hope, uncertainty and waiting)

Re-inventing
LENR, converting it to a superior form, LENR+ can e done only by combining the
scientific method with the way of technology- that is by a hybrid method and in
this action the key is engineering.Accepting that LENR is like a
caterpillar that must be metamorphosed in a butterfly able to fly i.e. generate
plenty of useful energy is a strange, too radical idea for many. It needs new
thinking, new mentality, displaced focus; scientific research coupled with and
lead by technological research, complete paradigm shift. Great questions:

- can we accept that
LENR needs a meta-theory and not a simple theory for its many pre-nuclear, nuclear
and post-nuclear stages?

- can we change
direction and say farewell to so many familiar dear concepts? (guess which
ones!)

- can we accept
solutions (Rossi, DGT) coming from outside so far and different from PdD wet
cells?

- is it believable that
the difference between LENR and LENR plus i.e. from watts to watts is only
dynamic generation of active sites at high working temperatures?

- is it only wishful
thinking to imagine many new LENR+ type technology first approaches by teams
young in spirit and bold in aspirations?

At this point the peer
reviewer of this paper said me he cannot decide if my ideas are more heretic or
more false. I am trying to create a new reality opposed to the things that are
actually simple- a proof that I know nothing. We will receive funding soon and
things will go well, without those Rossi and Defkalion and R+..

I got angry and
answered him:

“In any scientific field the most
harmful people are those who know everything but understand nothing. I try to
understand things in my way, nobody believes me- no harm. What I regret is that
we still have problems. Why?”

Friday, August 15, 2014

One of the many miracles that we see in LENR is the
stabilization of its nuclear waste products. This miracle is real as witnessed
by a number of patents having been awarded that have this LENR base isotope
stabilization effect as the centerpiece of its operating mechanism. [1,2]

Furthermore, a newly recognized phenomenon involving a
violation in the common rule held by science that nuclear decay rates are fixed
and constant has been shown to be violated by something emanating from the sun.
The results of many experiments showing this phenomenon has rocked the physics
community. This fixed rate of radioactive decay has been shown to vary widely
under some strange force that arises out of the core of the sun. [3,4]

There is something that is causing LENR and at the same time
stabilizing its reaction waste products. One pleasing and elegant idea is that
both phenomena are caused by the same thing. This article is an exploration of
the possibility that just a single factor is the fundamental mechanism of LENR
causation. We also attempt to show how this one critical factor can produce
both LENR characteristics with one characteristic emerging from the other.

Finally, this article will tie in the explanation of how
magnetism is produced as an end product of the Ni/H nanoplasmonic process and
how magnetism is the cause of accelerated nuclear decay rates. This article
will explain how magnetism does this in as simple a way as possible.

The acceleration of nuclear decay rates in LENR.

A well recognize feature of LENR is the rapid or sometimes
almost instantaneous stabilization of radioactive elements. This is the process
by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing
radiation and/or subatomic particles. To start a simple explanation of what the
stabilization of radioactive elements is all about, the nucleus of a
radioactive element is excited in a state of energy retention that is not as
low as it could possibly be.

Radioactive decay is a random process at the level of single
atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a
particular atom will decay. However, the chance that a given atom will decay is
amazingly constant over time.[5,6]

Einstein hated the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. He
famously dismissed this uncertain universe when he said "God does not play
dice with the universe". Unfortunately for Einstein, however, he was
proved wrong, when 50 years later experimental evidence finally caught up with
theoretical physics, and quantum theory was shown to be correct.

The binding energy that keeps all the parts of the nucleus
together and contained inside the nucleus is an uncertain thing. It varies
constantly at the whim of chance. The cosmic croupier spins his wheel of chance
and the ball falls into one of many quantum numbered pockets. Then, inside the
nucleus, a random quantum of energy pops into existence from the fabric of
space for a short time, this is called virtual energy. [7] In this way, the
energy that keeps the nucleus together goes up and down at the whim of quantum
mechanics. This nuclear binding energy is comprised of two parts: a real energy
that never changes and a virtual energy that always changes. It is this virtual
energy that can vary widely and is not constrained by the laws of energy and
momentum.

When constrained inside the nucleus and when this nuclear
energy is composed of the sum of these two parts get strong enough, it spills
over the top of the coulomb barrier and forms a real particle outside the
nucleus. This is called quantum mechanical tunneling. [8] The virtual part of
this spillover energy only lasts for the briefest of instants and immediately
goes back to the vacuum from whence it came and only the real part remains to
congeal into the newly formed particle that has tunneled through the barrier.
This process is called radioactive decay (AKA tunneling through the coulomb
barrier) and these congealed quanta of energy are called real particles and/or
ionizing radiation.

After this nuclear relaxation process has completed, if the
energy level inside the nucleus has been lowered enough so that it can never
again surmount the coulomb barrier no matter how much virtual energy may
appear, the element is said to be stable.

In regards to LENR, we can draw an amazing and informative
conclusion from this behavior of accelerated nuclear decay.

The fact that no radioactive isotopes are found in the ash
of the cold fusion reaction is unequivocal proof that LENR is caused by the
fantastically accelerated rate at which the cosmic croupier of chance spins his
wheel in the LENR casino.

I have described in
the previous article here at Ego Out that an anapole beam of magnetic force is
projected into the atoms within the nuclear active environment (NAE). So it
must be this beam of magnetism that accelerates virtual energy formation.

How magnetism increases radioactive decay is not yet
determined, but I have a few ideas on this subject.

Simply stated, magnetism is just another form of charge as a
reflection of the need to adjust the effects of charge in moving frames of
reference. A magnetic field is a relativistic manifestation of charge as seen
moving in the relativistic reference frame. [9, 10,11] A large ensemble of moving charge carriers
will produce a strong magnetic field that in turn will produce a large flux of
virtual photons in the frame of reference in which the charges are moving. A
magnetic field will be produced by the movement of electrons in the relativistic
frame of reference where the electrons are moving in a circle or more rightly a
vortex. This magnetic field which is really a stream of charge carrying virtual
photons will reach into a stationary frame of reference and impart into that
stationary frame (our frame) a large flux of virtual photons generated in the
frame of the relativistic moving charges.

To keep everything in balance the rate of virtual photon
production will be the same in both the relativistic frame and the stationary
frame to carry the effects of charge transmission and reception between the two
frames of reference. LENR is a process where action at a distance is manifest,
and that mode of causality is the result of the nature of magnetism where
virtual photons project into a distant frame of reference.

To give you a sneak preview of what is to come as an
example, the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) soliton is the frame in which a
large number of charges are moving at relativistic speed. The quark zone inside
the proton is where the three quarks orbit. This zone is the stationary frame
of reference that is affected by the magnetic field produced by the soliton.
The magnetic field will generate a large flux of virtual photons in the
stationary frame of the quark zone inside the proton. It is the large infusion
of virtual photons that catalyze the production of a virtual quark which is the
beginning of the formation of a meson.

A SPP soliton is a magnetic mechanism that concentrates and
focuses charge to a huge degree. One of the energy amplification mechanisms
found in LENR is energy beaming. Like a gamma ray burst [12] where an intense
pulse of energy can be seen from one far corner of the universe clear across to
the other side of the cosmos, a soliton can focus charge into a tight atomic
sized beam that is not subject to the inverse square law that usually dilutes
charge interaction with distance as usually happens in the spherical
distribution described by the inverse square law.

All of the virtual photons that carry charge is focused in a
tight beam which is very tight indeed; in fact so tight and concentrated that
charge is constrained to interact within a very small angstrom sized volume of
space/time.[14]

The magnetic field that projects into the nucleus not only
accelerates virtual particle creation; it also adds some real energy to those
virtual particles.[17]

To a large degree, in LENR the projection of charge through
magnetism is so intense, that it literally removes chance from the virtual
particle game and makes it a near certainty that a virtual particle with a huge
amount of energy will be created inside the nucleus. When the energy level is so high in the
nucleus during this LENR moment, the virtual particle will carry away the extra
energy that was exciting the radioactive nucleus and then the energy in the
nucleus is stabilized at its lowest nuclear energy level. By removing excitation energy, the coulomb
barrier is now high enough to always hold this reduced binding energy. Now when
the virtual particle gives its energy back to the vacuum from which it came the
binding energy contained in the newly relaxed nucleus is completely contained
by the confinement power of the coulomb barrier.

Here is an analog from the real world to help explain this
principle.

If we take a glass of water filled to the brim on a
leisurely car trip over a bumpy road, when you eventually hit some large bumps
in the road the water will splash over the brim until water reaches a maximum
level where the water does not splash out of the glass anymore. The time that
it takes to remove this excess water is random but related to the pattern of
the bumps encountered when the car passes over the bumpy road.

Now suppose we press the gas pedal to the floor and the
speed of the car increases to breakneck levels hitting those large bumps more
often and harder, reaching the no spill level of the glass in short order as
the water flies out of the glass at a great rate. When we resume our leisurely
pace, no water will ever spill out of the glass again no matter how bumpy the
road gets. We hit all the worse bumps in our race and we hit those bumps very
hard. The water level in the glass is now forever stable.

This LENR mechanism of accelerated tunneling is central to
the way LENR can produce energy through extreme ranges of power output from
megawatts to milliwatts.

One of the toughest LENR riddles to answer is as follows:
‘how can the meltdown of a Ni/H reactor be caused by the same process that can
produce one watt of output in the Dennis Cravens' golden ball.’[16]

The mechanism that provides this vast range of power
generation intensity is tunneling.[14]

It is clear that the application of a magnetic field can
increase the rate of radioactive decay in isotopes by many orders of magnitude.
A radioactive isotope that might normally take a few hundred years to cut its
radioactive rate in half might take a microsecond during a LENR moment.

Meson Production

This same quantum mechanical tunneling mechanism can work
inside of protons and neutrons to increase the production of virtual mesons.

To set the stage for this next phase of our description, the
three quarks inside a proton live inside a very small volume. This quantum
confinement box is the volume that the quarks rattle around in inside the
proton. This minuscule volume defines the constraints imposed on the
uncertainty of this trio of quarks by limiting the range in their position to a
high degree. Through the uncertainty principle, this means that the variable
maximum virtual energy that this fixed position produces is very large.

The virtual quark inside the proton is jumping around inside
its tunneling confinement box with great vigor.

But the energy level to produce a meson is also very high at
140 MeV. So without some help from the vacuum,
a meson is not produced by virtual particle production.

But when a magnetic field is applied to the proton, it adds
some kinetic energy to the quark dance and a whole lot of virtual photons. This
pushes up the floor of the tunneling confinement box. The degree in which this
floor is raised is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field applied
to the proton. The magnetic field also increases the rate of virtual particle
production proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

In a very strong magnetic field, a new quark is formed out
of the added magnetic and virtual energy and that quark jumps out of the
proton. An anti-quark is formed to mate up with the expelled quark since no
quark can exist on its own. This pair of
new quarks now forms a virtual meson that has tunneled out of the proton. These
virtual mesons will jump out of the proton confinement box very often because
LENR has raised the floor of the box very high and the associated rate of
virtual meson production is then very high. Their energy levels are a lot
greater because the virtual energy has been supplemented by magnetic energy. In
this way, very many mesons are produced that will eventually decay to muons;
[15, 20] and muons catalyzed hydrogen fusion. [18]

The protons derived from ionized hydrogen that floats into
the magnetically irradiated NAE will produce muons via tunneling and that muon
attracts another proton through coulomb attraction. This proton pair that is
formed from muon attraction will fuse together after they are brought very
close together by the muon. This is called proton proton (PP) fusion. These
pairs of protons are seen in Piantelli’s experiments.

The theory of muon catalyzed fusion (MCF) is similar in
concept to the negative ion mechanism that Piantelli proposes. But MCF will
result in PP fusion. [19] The end reaction products of PP fusion are primarily
light elements like boron and beryllium. These light elements have been seen in
the ash assay results from DGT.

PP fusion will also explain why Piantelli sees proton pairs
in his reaction cycle combining with nickel to produce copper.

Another pleasing idea is that there is a great energy gain
mechanism at play associated with muon catalyzed fusion. An investment of just
a few MeV of magnetic energy can produce an average fusion yield of 150
reactions per emitted muon.

From one LENR system to another, these muons are composed of
a varied mixture of virtual energy and real energy based on the strength of the
magnetic beam that produced them. A muon that contains mostly virtual energy
doesn’t last long (4.88x10^^−24 s). In this brief lifetime that muon will only
cause a small number of fusions. A muon which contains mostly real magnetic
energy lasts a very long time (2.6×10^^−8 s). In this very long lifetime that muon
will produce large numbers of fusions.

Particles are all the same. Some last a very long time and
some endure but for an instant. Lifespan is relative in the world of particles.

At this juncture, it is not clear how much magnetic energy
is required to keep a gainful fusion reaction going. The number of muon
catalyzed fusion reactions that occur is proportional to the decay time of the
muon. A muon that has a long delay time because of the amount of its high
kinetic energy content may catalyze many hundreds of fusion reactions on the
average before it decays.

In the case of the Dennis Cravens' golden ball together with
the other milliwatt level systems when the magnetic field is very weak, very
few mesons tunnel out of the proton confinement box and the muon catalyzed
fusion level is very small. But fusion still goes on because that small amount
of extra magnetic energy is just enough to produce some small amounts of
fusion.

Finally, one of the big challenges of any LENR nuclear
reaction theory is conformance with a boatload of particle physics conservation
laws. The Meson theory has been under development for just under a century now
and particle physics has developed an associated experimentally verified system
that conforms strictly to all of these many conservation laws.

This meson theory can be verified by the detection of a
large increase in the numbers of muon neutrinos exiting an active Ni/H reactor.

2 – Ken Shoulders'
basic process is been shown as a solution the remediation of nuclear waste. By
bombarding radioactive nuclei with charge clusters, the induced nuclear
reactions (primarily fissioning of the heavier elements) result in a reduction
of harmful radiation. Laboratory experiments show a dramatic transmutation of
radioactive thorium into smaller-mass elements with the marked reduction of the
naturally radioactive thorium.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

“Growing up is hard, love. Otherwise everyone would do it.”(Kim Harrison)

THE MOST WICKED PROBLEM IS
PROBLETENCE.

The worldwide epidemic of
Probletence is hundreds times more dangerous than Ebola and where it hits-
disasters come fast.

For the lovers of
definitions: the word is formed by combining ‘problem ‘ and ‘impotence’ and
means chronic inability for solving problems, including the really vital
ones. Probletence is not in the
dictionaries, is not popular, not a meme; however combating it is a condition
of survival.

Probletence- has more rules,
here are the first three ones:

First Rule“A problem
will NOT be solved if the number, influence or power of the people living,
taking profit from
the problem is greater than the same characteristics of the people who want
solve the problem."

(when the rulers
oppose to the solving of a problem in order to protect their privileges or
interests, the problems persist and can become permanent)

Second Rule: “A problem will
NOT be solved in the great majority of the cases not because people do not see
the solution,

but because they do not see
the problem itself.”

(any form of ignorance and
illiteracy is deadly danger for problem solving, however the cult of ignorance
and the practice of arrogant illiteracy are fatal; in most cases the problem
solving does not start at all- it is ejaculation ante portas)

Third Rule: “A problem will
NOT be solved when the methods used for solving it become more important and
valuable than the solution itself and the same inefficient methods continue to
be used in vain for “solving” the problem.

(this is a specific
case of “means replace aims” and …it is impossible to solve problems with
inadequate tools or worst practices)

So, problems are not solved-
when a solution is not desired, when the problem is not recognized and when the
tools used are not good. Oppressed, ignored and tool-less problems have no

chances.

The first rule refers to
problem killers but the second and the third to the problem solvers.

Many combinations and stages
of these laws appear in practice...

If you believe these rules
have value, please combine them with the Rules of real life problem solving, attached
to this paper.

When you analyze these rules,
please take in consideration that in Western modern cultures “solving the
problems” is an obligation, therefore many unsolved problems get replacement
solutions, pseudo-solutions, sometimes solutions that are worse

than the initial problem or
solutions generating new problems.

The realm of probletence is
vast and varied.

THE CASE OF LENR.

Is LENR impacted by
probletence, now? Everybody will be agree that LENR was/is a victim of the
First rule – the field has a broad range of oppressors- hot fusionists enjoying
their own long range huge cost probletence, fossil fuels profiteers, renewable
energy workers with problems of development, neophobic and dogmatic theoreticians,
sadistic bullies in search of a vulnerable cause. Lack of funding,
ostracization by high rank journals, bad press are efficient forms of
oppression; research in LENR is risky for careers. Terribly bad, only a very
fast victory of (then) cold fusion in the first stage after the
Fleischmann-Pons conference could change this. However the great strategic
error of searching for neutrons and then the

dreadful calamity called
“irreproducibility” combined with weak signals in the few successful experiments
lead to a long time existential crisis. The accumulated results can give the
certainty that the phenomenon exists. However, in 25 years of heroic work it had
been slow progress and the perspective of creating a new energy source is – as
it is. By the way, I have written a lot of blog papers saying what I will
repeat now here- however my ideas have limited success and only LENR is more
probletent than me, in this respect. I will mention here only this obvious
loser:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/everything-i-knew-about-cold-fusion-was.html

I will now re-write the
history of LENR in this spirit of the fight with probletence; it is here about
the second law- LENR is not understood well.

LENR HAS TO GROW UP!

The second law of probletence
is dominating the field- the basics of the LENR problem are not understood.

What has happened in 1989? A
phenomenon of paramount importance was discovered before its time, in the worst
place possible in an undeveloped form-as a newborn infant weak, sick, vulnerable,
with serious birth defects, needing intensive care.

Because Fleischmann and Pons who
have discovered it have achieved a status of heroes, the cradle of the infant
was considered the place where the infant will develop, grow up.

The wet electrochemical PdD
model has achieved many horizontal, incremental successes and has continued to
be popular Actually, it can be seen that the cradle has converted CF/LENR in a
kind of unhappy bonsai-cat and the cradle can become a coffin too.

I dislike these forced
analogies; they have good doses of idiocy in them however they help us to
define the root problem:

LENR HAS TO GROW UP! So much about confronting the first two laws
of probletence and applying problem solving rule no.3. However it comes the
great war with the terrible third law of probletence – it needs courageous
decisions, radical changes a and a lot of blood,toil,tears, and sweat-
to cite my favorite politician

The inner myths and memes and labels
of the field are “we take no prisoners” type enemies in this war.

HELPING LENR TO GROW UP

If you misunderstand the
problem, how could you know what the solution has to be? LENR has to grow up,
and this means

more, a lot more then growing
greater and stronger, it implies

deep radical quality changes
as the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly, the creeping “creature”
from the electrolysis cell has to become a different, high “flying” and a high
temperature energy source everybody wants in his/her house snd/or factory.
In the spirit of the third law of probletence-actually against it- new tools
are needed, new approaches, improved thinking, and a paradigm shift.

About the “tools”- old and
new- worn-out and created now:

-From the start CF was
considered to be a scientific problem. it was believed Science will solve the
LENR problem and all we have to do is to find the scientific explanation of the
phenomenon and to use it for development. It was supposed that this is a
relatively easy and fast way. There will be used probably more tools but the
handle for all will be a good theory.

There is no other way than
that of the Scientific Method and for

building a technology, it is
necessary to understand well LENR.

-The search for the Theory
was very successful quantitatively but, optimistically speaking, a complete failure
qualitatively no usable theory for guiding experiments was found. This is a sad
reality not some vision based on depression. We know the phenomenon is
existent, it is manifested by excess heat- but where, when, how, why this heat
appears is not known. And why (XXX) it does not appear so many times? What have we to do in order to obtain more
heat, regularly? Is this possible or just a dream or unfulfilled promise? I
judge the situation is intolerable and has to be changed. Many of my friends
tend to be less wary, LENR is such an interesting and fine mystery!

It says that HTSC –a non-probletent
phenomenon, 3 years older then LENR was explained only very recently. In
Condensed Matter Science, nuclear or not nuclear, theories still are not
realistic and cannot be used for applications. It is developing fast-
nanosciences are leading- however for our case/problem new theories re
necessary. (missing theory)

-The birthplace of Cold
Fusion has determined the kinds of theories tried- electrochemistry,
palladium-hydrogen interaction, nuclear physics. The catalytic model proposed
by me for investigation in 1991 was ignored however it partially entered the
field as NAE (active sites)

It is much disagreement
regarding the topology, nature and mechanism of the reaction that generates the
desired excess heat, the secondary and the parasitic reactions.

Chemistry cannot explain LENR
therefore LENR MUST be nuclear, and if it is nuclear it is only nuclear and
nothing else.

(bad choice of theory
model)

-LENR does not need one
theory, but many- it is more complex and complicated than thought- it is a
combination of sequences;

DGT has formulated this as: “dynamic
system of the multi-stage set of reactions” a very bright definition, IMHO. No
single theory can explain LENR. Some of these steps are nuclear, others are
pre- and post-nuclear. (multiple
theories necessary)

HOWEVER: the solution seems to be in a way
prior to theory, the primary task is not to explain LENR but to transform it in
a productive system. The CF device was just a start- whispering an “it is
possible” message, we have to build reliable, powerful working device. The
issue is much more about “to do” then about “to know”, action and knowledge
have to work together.

For many of our colleagues this seems to be not
a “scientific” way- but, you will see, no other way leads to success.

Technology is the way, engineering is the key, and
science is both means and aim, not the panaceum. We must choose the way less
known and be aware that it is obstacled even dangerous.

The E-cat and Hyperion sagas, still in
development, allow us to learn a few things about engineering and technology.
Gas phase dry and clean, degassed metal –micro and nano mixed as it has to be
(?) in contact with hydrogen in an activated form, at high temperatures. 200 C
seems to be a practical lower limit. The system is dynamic, in more senses.
Materials science is vital, control is difficult, heat transfer is critical.
Changing, improving, understanding, trying and retrying, making errors and
correcting them, surprises and delays, tests and other tests, standardizing the
tests – the unique beauty of industrial research. A wave of bitter-sweet
nostalgia hits me, once I was a player now just a passionate sunset-stage
kibitz always in search of broken, scarce information.

Eventually, LENR technologies will be created,
Fleischmann’s and Pons’ magnificent dream becoming real, very far from the
cradle in some sophisticated heavy metal boxes...

It will be demonstrated that probletence is not
a fatal curse and it is not invincible. If Homo sapiens cannot find the answer,
Homo faber- a denier of the Impossible- will save him. Technology is the domain
of human activity where probletence cannot rule.

Only new good ideas and very
hard development work can save LENR!

Comments are NOT welcome-
they lead to dialogues and these are only one step from the ”You are wrong, I
am right” trap. Let us use fertile parallel monologs- so please send only additions
and/or subtractions to this paper. Thank you!

Peter

ADDENDA

RULES OF REAL LIFE PROBLEM
SOLVING

Motto:

“I think, I exist. I
decide, I live. I solve the problems, I live with a purpose.”

1. There are NO isolated
problems, they always come in dynamic bunches.

2. There are NO final
solutions for the really great problems, these have to be solved again and
again.

3. NOT solving the problem,
but defining it is the critical step.

4. NOT the unknown data, but
those known and untrue are the greatest obstacles to the solution.

5. .NOT what we know, but
what we don’t know is more important for solving the problem.

6. NOT the main desired
positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide
in most cases if a solution is implemented.

7. NOT all problems have a
complete, genuine solution.

8. NOT the solutions that
seem perfect from the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best
in many cases.

9. NOT the bright, shiny,
spectacular solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and
effort and patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability.

10. NOT the solutions that
are logical and perfectly rational, but those that are adequate for the
feelings of the potential users, even if they are ilogical, have the greatest
chances of fast implementation.

11. NOT the quality of the
solution but the speed of its implementation is the decisive factor in many
cases. It can be better to have a partial solution applied fast than a slower
almost perfect solution.

12. NOT always long hours of
hard work and great efforts, but (sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way
to obtain solutions for (awfully) difficult problems.

13. NOT our own problems, but
the problems of other people are usually more boldly and creatively solved by
us

14. NOT the solutions worked
out by us, but those borrowed. bought or stolen from others are more easily
accepted and implemented.

15. NOT the enhancement of
human strengths but the limitation of human weaknesses is more useful for
efficient problem solving.

16. NOT the very careful
perfect planning, but the smart assuming of risks and firm decision taking are
the practical keys to successful problem solving.

17. NOT always the existent,
real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most
difficult to be solved.

18. Do NOT accept the
premises of the problem, but change them as necessary and possible.

19. Do NOT stop at the first
solution, but seek for alternatives.

–

RULE- the most important of
all;

20. NOT the wise application
of these rules but the finding of the specific exceptions to these, is the real
high art of problem solving.

The rules are inherently
perfectible. Despite their broad applicability

including the most wicked
problems and their availability in 20 languages the rules are till not taught
in schools and are far from the stage of epidemic dissemination. This results
in Humanity terrorized by myriads of unsolved, painful problems of all kind, by
worldwide epidemics of Probletence.

Monday, August 4, 2014

For a new, growing company that tries to develop a novel
energy source- S (Strengths) W (weaknesses) and O (Opportunities) determine
future life, from beaten to prosperous; however T (threats) is about survival,
about continuation or disappearance.

cheapness, possibilities to further scale up and
diversification of applications, no risks and low maintenance, acceptance by
the bureaucracy. To not forget the real possibility to convert lowly thermal
energy in high currency electric energy. Plus other things that can be
discovered/revealed only by hands-on thinking beyond the limits- practice –
hidden Black Swans.

As told, these are ideal conditions and all the known energy sources
that had been, are, or will be used, fossil, renewable, old, new, existent or
just imagined- fulfill these requirements- more or less. The real performances
determine Rossi’s necessarily hybrid answer- positive and (not or) negative
results and the directions of future research. We can only hope the positive
things- as intense long term enhanced excess heat well tempered at high
temperatures–will be dominant.

Obviously, Rossi plus Industrial Heat surely are aware
that T from SWOT is vital today. T is about terrible things as treason,
takeover, theft- these can be very dangerous. The company must protect its
intellectual property. This is now a critical task, not easy at all.

Alas, gone are the good ugly days when detractors like
Steve Krivit, Gary Wright, Mary Yugo, Joshua Cude etc- all writing well and
convincingly and full of hatred like the snake’s teeth of venom, have been so
helpful in keeping industrial espionage away- almost for free. With detractors
gone, tired, lazy, retired or converted to LENR+ believers- who knows? - good bye free protection!

Other means have to be used- silence is the most handy.
Go in dark, communicate only with those who can help, temporarily eliminate
mass-media and kibitzes, postpone scientific communications and let people asking
in vain what happens.

Be invisible for the time till your generator is fully
operational.

Let news - highly exaggerated news regarding the imminent
death of the company circulate freely; do not care. In this stage the network
of your partners, customers, true friends, is already woven and can serve as
life net- in case.

Silence is not made for Rossi- ha can be far from perfect
but he likes people and is structurally, a showman, likes his blog and needs
communication. Or the illusion of it.

We can take for sure that both Rossi and IH like nice,
curious,

Ecatphiliacs and Ecat fans- however not so much as creating problems for themselves; these
friends will receive, interesting, even captivating news but nothing essential
till the much expected Report of the Professors regarding the long term
functioning of the Hot Cat (not the 1MW Warm Cat). In meantime –as an ‘Apage
Satanas’ formula it is obsessively repeated that the results can be positive or
negative, without

defining what does this mean. By the way, only poor
masochists

are able to continue chasing negative results for months.

For me the big question is how much will this Report say
about ash, about the real reactions that generate heat. In which extent will be
the old cold fusion paradigm shattered? It is normal that no know-how elements
will be disclosed.

Rossi has not revealed his technological principles, has
patented processes very loosely connected to what he really does and knows, and
has made a disproportionately great fuss around the unpatentable stuff- very
wise, and 99% of his fans believe his patenting strategy is unjustly oppressed.

.

ADDENDA- an other means of protection- patents.

(take care please this part is
not very important and what I say can hurt your feelings, read it at your own responsibility.)

research, I have established a long term collaboration
with OLTCHIM to study the trends and improvements in their technologies. In
great part, this was based on reading, understanding, evaluating and
classifying a lot of patents for processes. I am emphasizing “processes’
because for “product patents” the things are different.

My main source of patent info was the Referativnyi
Zhurnal Khimia- the Russian equivalent – really good- of Chemical Abstracts. I
had to read a lot of patents found lots of ideas; some were compared with
offers of the companies, tested in lab,

pilot plants, or compared with what the competition says,
converted in research projects etc., etc. The list of translated and analyzed patent
abstracts and patents in extenso became very long, we had many failures and a
few successes. I am workaholic and I enjoyed this activity. I think it gave me
the possibility to learn a lot about creativity, inventiveness and problem
solving. However some of my conclusions seem negative; actually they are just
realistic:

“By studying the patent literature of a process, you
learn the mythology, not the history of that process.”

Now I will add this in a new form- more adapted to the
“protection by fantasy patents” issue

Paraphrasing this quote: “One great use of words is
to hide our thoughts.” (Voltaire)

we can say:

“A good use of (some) process patents is to
hide our real processes”

You will decide if these principles are
relevant for the subject of this writing.

Notice: my patent search and other activities
were brutally interrupted by an event that has changed my life for ever.